I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that I "delete a lot of significant edits on various entries." As for not "[deleting] statements simply because you do not understand them", it is perfectly acceptable to delete nonsensical statements from articles. Here is the nonsense at issue confluent hypergeometric function:

The right hand side is clearly not a "formal power series", nor can it exist as a formal power series, nor is the equality of the left and right-hand sides "as formal power series" well-defined here. So, before inserting again, please take a moment to consider carefully the meaning of the symbols involved. What, for instance, does "=" mean here? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps by the above you mean instead that

as an asymptotic series as z → 0 in the right half-plane? If so, the article should say this rather than expecting that readers will understand that from what is written above. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reference to Abramowitz and Stegun is mistaken. They do not mention this. As for the Weisstein, I challenge the reliability of that source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You correctly assert that "=" is well-defined for formal power series, but totally missed the point. Please explain precisely what the meaning of the "=" in an expression of the form (an analytic function) = (a divergent formal power series in z) is. This is, of course, accepting that the right-hand side of the formula above is a formal power series in z, as you are so insistent. More properly, apart from the initial factor of z−a, it is a formal power series in 1/z. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I went and looked this up in another book on special functions. Contrary to your continued assertion that this is a "formal power series" identity, a fact which you have yet to explain compellingly, it is rather an identity at the level of asymptotic series as I have continually suggested. In the future, it might behoove you to understand the difference between these two things. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite sources when you add identities and other maths information, e.g. your recent edits to Bessel function. It doesn't matter whether you know they are correct, the reader needs to be able to look up the source of the information in order to verify it or find more information. See WP:CITE and WP:V -- these are the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

You continue to add unreferenced information, which I am forced to revert! You must include references, or you are just wasting everyone's time. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'm a math student and i'm interested in the error of the limit-expression of the exponential function. I would like to ask: Can you prove this? or give some page where is the proof? (You wrote this at Exponential function) ->

Hello. In this sort of edit, your using too many capital letters. I've changed it from Connection with Value at Risk to Connection with value at risk. This is required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I recently saw that you removed my modifications from the Biconjugate Gradient page. I made the modifications because I implemented the way it was, and it did not worked. I double checked and the complex conjugates in the conjugate transpose counterparts of {p,r,x} are invalid.

Hi, you recent edits broke some of the cross-references at Fourier transform. Could you please fox the numbers in the table? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.212 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. About exponential function, you have added the error term of the function without reference. [1] Now, it is in question and needs some source. Could you provide some reference about it? If you could not point out, I am afraid that your paragraph will be removed. --Octra Bond (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.96.187 (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions to the Euler summation article. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we cannot accept sources that appear to be the original work of the editor. If the material you added can be attributed to a reliable source, you may add it back if you cite it. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in the verifiability of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. You might want to add in how this theorem can be applied.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Hz.tiang 10:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)